The Winter Olympics is no stranger to wacky sporting events. In its modern history, the Winter Games have hosted weird spectacles like the winter biathlon (a sport that pairs two pastimes that don’t at all go together—cross-country skiing and precision rifle shooting), luge (an event in which athletes lie on their backs atop a tiny sled and hurl themselves down an icy track at speeds up to 90 mph), and curling (in which two teams take turns sliding large, polished stones over a rectangular sheet of ice toward a bull’s-eye target, while two teammates frantically sweep the ice with brooms to help direct the stones).

But if those sports, all featured at the Sochi games, ­aren’t quite bizarre enough for your taste, consider the onetime—and possibly future—Olympic sport of skijoring.

Related Story

Pronounced skee-JORE-ing, the sport has been described by some as being somewhat akin to water skiing, except on snow. While wearing snow skis instead of water skis. And while being pulled by a dog.

In reality, the sport is closer to being a cross between cross-country skiing and dog sledding. Skijoring (Norwegian for “ski driving”) is a competitive sport in which a dog is outfitted with a sledding harness that’s attached by a towline to a belt worn by a skier. Skijoring races—usually anywhere from four to 12 miles­ in length—are a study in human-canine teamwork; a blur of fur, ski blades, and snow (sometimes yellow snow). Athletes wear ultra-light skate skis and power themselves by striding with poles while simultaneously being pulled along by a dog (or small team of dogs) that run 6-to-10 feet a head of the skier. Dog-powered skijorers can reach speeds of up to 25 mph.

Skijoring was a demonstration event at the 1928 Winter Olympics, held in St. Moritz, Switzerland; skiers were towed, somewhat implausibly, by horses rather than dogs. After that, it disappeared from competition.

Inevitably, several forms of “extreme skijoring” have cropped up, some more improbable than others. There’s equestrian skijoring—the type demonstrated in the 1928 Olympics—in which a skier is pulled by a towline attached to the harness of a galloping horse. Often, equestrian skijorers also have to negotiate a series of obstacles and jumps. Skiers often have a difficult time controlling their spirited steeds, and athletes commonly suffer cuts and bruises from flying ice kicked up by horses’ hooves.

Arno Balzarini / AP

There’s also, on the less serious end of the spectrum, snowmobile-powered skijoring—which involves a skier, a snowmobile, and not infrequently, alcohol. The object of snowmobile skijoring appears to be causing the skier to wipe out as spectacularly as possible, while a third party records the hilarity and posts it on YouTube.

And then there’s the ultimate in extreme skijoring—skiing while being pulled by a powerful all-wheel-drive vehicle. This form of the sport is not for the faint of heart, nor the sensible. Skijoring world champion Franco Moroski once sped through the snow while tethered to the rear of a twin-turbocharged 567-horsepower luxury Bentley Continental GT, and lived to tell the tale. It’s unlikely that this type of skijoring will ever become an Olympic event. Unless, of course, Bentley agrees to sponsor it.

Supporters have to show that skijoring adheres to the rules and restrictions imposed on all Olympic sports. That includes anti-doping rules. And not just for the skiers—for the dogs, too.

But in recent years, a movement to bring skijoring (the dog-powered variety) to a future Winter Olympics has started to gain some traction. And why not? It’s hard to argue that a skier being pulled by dogs is any stranger than athletes madly sweeping brooms to direct large polished stones across the ice.

In order for skijoring be added to a future Winter Olympics, supporters will need to convince the International Olympic Committee (IOC) that the sport has international appeal, attracts world-class athletes, adds value to the games and presents well on television. The IOC tends to be somewhat stingy when it comes to adding new events, although the committeee has added golf and rugby to the 2016 summer games in Rio.

Supporters failed to convince the IOC to add skijoring to the Sochi games, but advocates are setting their sights on the 2018 Winter Olympics, to be held in Pyeongchang, South Korea.

The International Federation of Sleddog Sports (IFSS), the global governing body of all sled dog sports, is currently drafting an application to submit to the IOC on behalf of skijoring. The group says it’s too early to tell how the committee will rule, but officials feel that, with a little luck, skijoring’s moment in the Olympic spotlight may not be far off.

“I know the Olympic committee is looking for new winter sports that would be interesting to view on TV,” says Helen Lundberg, president of the IFSS. “To be honest, there are a lot of bureaucratic things you have to go through before they approve a new sport. But I’m optimistic.”

Skijoring supporters not only have to convince Olympic officials that the sport could attract competitive athletes from around the world, but they also have to show that skijoring adheres to the rules and restrictions imposed on all Olympic sports. That includes anti-doping rules. And not just for the skiers—for the dogs, too.

There’s an astonishing array of substances and methods prohibited for would-be Olympic dogs. Naturally, anabolic steroids, hormones, and masking agents such as diuretics are banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency, as they are for human athletes. So are oxygen transfer enhancements (blood doping), intravenous infusions, and force-feeding (even though it’s a rare dog that needs to be forced to eat anything).

But other prohibited substances for Olympic dogs include anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics, aspirin, and oddly, alcohol. (The International Federation of Equestrian Sports also maintains a similar list of banned substances for horses.) There are even bans on doggie cough suppressants, bronchodilators, acupuncture, and chiropractic manipulation.

Most of these bans are held over from other canine sports, like sled dog racing. In 2005, Associated Press sportswriter Steve Wilstein noted that it was the dogs, not the humans, who got tested for banned substances at checkpoints in the famous Iditarod sled dog race in Alaska. “That says something about which ones are the real athletes in this 1,100-mile journey over snow and ice,” he wrote. If skijoring were to become a competition Olympic sport, the games could one day have to face the challenge of dealing with a canine Lance Armstrong.

“When I take the skijoring harness out of the closet, my dog beats me to the door.”

Skijoring may be a little-known sport in America, but its popularity has grown over the past decade: There are now skijoring spots in New England, New York, California, and throughout the upper Midwest. The Minnesota-based Midwest Skijorers Club currently has about 200 fulltime members, and an estimated 2,000 people have been members since the club began in 2000. Jim Benson, president of the organization, took up the sport about 15 years ago, at a time when he says there weren’t any snow trails dedicated to skijoring.

“Now, there are probably 100 designated trails for skijoring in Minnesota,” Benson says.

The Midwest Skijorers Club holds regular races and provides “paws-on” training for novice skijorers and their dogs. The organization helps aspiring skijorers address questions such as: “Does your dog stop and sniff things on the trail?” and “Does your dog visit with other dogs on the trail rather than staying focused and passing them?” Other problematic dog behaviors include stopping to pee every few minutes and running in circles around their owner's ankles. But to hear enthusiasts tell it, skijoring can be as enjoyable for dogs as it is for humans. “When I take the skijoring harness out of the closet, my dog beats me to the door,” says Benson.

In America, recreational skijorers make up the largest segment of the sport, with skiers typically bringing the family pet along for the action. Almost any dog weighing more than 30 pounds that likes to run and pull is a candidate for skijoring—even poodles.

“It’s a big adrenaline rush when you’re skijoring behind two really powerful dogs,” says Rebecca Knight, a champion skijorer from Anchorage, Alaska. “I was hooked the first time I tried it. It allows me to combine my love of skiing with my passion for dogs.”

Skijoring holds world championships every two years; the last took place in 2013 in North Pole, Alaska, near Fairbanks. The sport is currently dominated by Scandinavian athletes, who reliably combine exceptional skiing prowess with superior dog breeding. (Dog breeds such as Huskies, German Shorthaired Pointers, Australian shepherds and Malamutes tend to be favored by world-class skijorers.)

But even though Scandinavians have won most of the medals at recent world championships, American skijorers and their dogs are nipping at the heels of their Nordic competitors.

“We have some excellent American skijorers right now,” Knight says. “I think that in the near future we’re going to see an American win a medal.”

About the Author

Tom McNichol, a frequent contributor to TheAtlantic.com, is a San Francisco writer whose work has also appeared in the New Yorker, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and on NPR's "All Things Considered."

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.